simplify header canonicalization

[mdb]

Please let me know what you think of this effort to simplify the process by which headers are canonicalized.

Thanks!

[mdb]

As noted in my commit message:

Akamai API authentication documentation suggests:

• there is no need to specify specific headers to sign; all can/should be signed, which simplifies the code
• there is no need to order the canonicalized headers

See documentation for further clarification:
https://developer.akamai.com/introduction/Client_Auth.html

Please let me know if I'm mistaken.

[mdb]

@ktyacke @JonathanBennett Please let me know if you all have thoughts on this PR. Thanks!

[JonathanBennett]

Hi @mdb - started replying but never finished.

Would be good to have an Akamai opinion here so I'm tagging in @maglietti who might be able to help.

Originally the documentation stated they had to be ordered alphabetically as far as I remember, and the documentation contradicts itself in the example, where they've ordered the headers as they had to be done before. Assumed though this is tested and is working for calls? Haven't had a chance to try it myself yet.

[mdb]

I'll stay posted for word from @maglietti, though it's my belief this works as desired.

As for testing, I have done some basic acceptance testing, though it's fairly difficult to conduct exhaustive functional/acceptance tests without a suitable Akamai account against which I can perform destructive/modifying actions with no customer-impacting consequence.

As an aside, I would love to be able to utilize a throwaway Akamai GTM domain, etc. against which we can perform such acceptance tests. @ktyacke - curious to hear if Akamai can provide such a thing.

[ktyacke]

@mdb @JonathanBennett Reviewing this now. @maglietti is unfortunately no longer with Akamai, so I will do my best to answer your questions.

[JonathanBennett]

@mdb @ktyacke If Akamai has such an account for development purposes of libraries that would be awesome.. Kyle?

[ktyacke]

@mdb The changes look good to me. I like the simplification, and think it will make the code a bit easier to digest. One question: I noticed you changed method name "canonicalize_headers" to "canonicalizeHeaders". The majority of the methods in these scripts are named using an underscore syntax. Are you thinking you'd like to move towards using camelCase for the naming convention?

[ktyacke]

@JonathanBennett We don't offer such an account at this time, but I'll look into seeing if this might be a feasible option for future releases. In the mean-time, would you be able to create a "QA" property on your account to test against?

[mdb]

@ktyacke Regarding the camelCasing, yes, ideally I'd like to standardize on camelCased method/variable names, given that JavaScript itself uses camel casing rather than snake_case. That said, I recognize this is a stylistic preference and I'm open to others' opinions.

[ktyacke]

@mdb I'm actually in favor of camelCasing myself, I just noted that the majority of the code is written using snake_case and wasn't sure if doing such a vast refactor would raise concerns with you or @JonathanBennett If you guys are ok with it, I am as well!